At a time when it appeared that the next quarterback contract extension would be given to Aaron Rodgers by the Packers, the Cowboys finally got their long-coveted deal in place with Tony Romo. And with Romo, who has won precisely one career playoff game, now under contract at a seven-year average of $17 million, Rodgers'

I don't know whether this belongs in this thread or your other about the need for a franchise QB. I say this from the perspective of someone who sees Romo (on TV) virtually every week, and whose second favorite team (albeit distant second) is the Cowboys. Romo is good, maybe even great at times, but he is not so special that he couldn't be adequately replaced by ...... most of the QBs warming benches around the NFL. And no, that is not just a slam of Romo. I would say the same for Cutler, Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Griffin, Luck, basically everybody not named Rodgers, Brady, Brees, or P. Manning - and really, I'm not sure the list of difference makers even extends to the other three - it may begin and end with Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers IMO is in a class by himself in terms of quality.

All of that being said, I don't see how the signing of Romo underscores the importance of a new deal for Rodgers in the immediate future. Yeah, I would love to have it happen this off-season. It's unthinkable to lose him, and for peace of mind, I hope the big deal comes through soon and is a "rest of the career" contract. Yeah, I want to see the sky being the limit for Rodgers in terms of money. However, I don't see the signing of Romo or Flacco as significantly impacting the Rodgers contract. Why? Because I expect Rodgers to get so much more money than either of those that the slight expansion of market value has little effect.

I fully expect Rodgers to get a ten or more year contract for well over $200 million, with $100 + million guaranteed, and for that to happen WITHOUT significant harm done to the Packers salary cap situation - I mean like $10 million or less cap hit the first year.

I don't know whether this belongs in this thread or your other about the need for a franchise QB. I say this from the perspective of someone who sees Romo (on TV) virtually every week, and whose second favorite team (albeit distant second) is the Cowboys. Romo is good, maybe even great at times, but he is not so special that he couldn't be adequately replaced by ...... most of the QBs warming benches around the NFL. And no, that is not just a slam of Romo. I would say the same for Cutler, Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Griffin, Luck, basically everybody not named Rodgers, Brady, Brees, or P. Manning - and really, I'm not sure the list of difference makers even extends to the other three - it may begin and end with Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers IMO is in a class by himself in terms of quality.

All of that being said, I don't see how the signing of Romo underscores the importance of a new deal for Rodgers in the immediate future. Yeah, I would love to have it happen this off-season. It's unthinkable to lose him, and for peace of mind, I hope the big deal comes through soon and is a "rest of the career" contract. Yeah, I want to see the sky being the limit for Rodgers in terms of money. However, I don't see the signing of Romo or Flacco as significantly impacting the Rodgers contract. Why? Because I expect Rodgers to get so much more money than either of those that the slight expansion of market value has little effect.

I fully expect Rodgers to get a ten or more year contract for well over $200 million, with $100 + million guaranteed, and for that to happen WITHOUT significant harm done to the Packers salary cap situation - I mean like $10 million or less cap hit the first year.

I guess we see it differently. Aside from maybe a few really young guys who haven't really had their chance yet I don't see more than 3 maybe 4 of the QBs warming the bench on any team as viable starters in the NFL. I think that is why so many teams have been reaching to draft young QBs the last couple of years. There is no one in the league now that you realistically have a chance to get (read that as backups on other teams) that are any better than any rookie you might draft. Teams are locking up their starters and letting the backups go but that is mainly because the backups suck. Players like Flynn and Kolb and Palmer are getting looks now but I could see any of the teams that get those players drafting a QB #1 anyway.

I hate the cowboys with a passion but Romo is not a bad QB. He is certainly in the top half of QBs in the league and could be a top 10. I don't see any current benchwarmers who could step in and give the cowboys anything like they get from Romo.

The Packers have been very fortunate to have been blessed with Starr, Dickey, Favre, and Rodgers. With the exception of Dickey, a lot of winning has occurred because of these guys. And I would say that Favre and Rodgers did more with less talent than Starr had - and Starr himself has said he is nowhere near the quarterback Favre and Rodgers are. Whatever we end up paying Rodgers, it will seem like a bargain in a couple years. There isn't a player in the league that I would trade him for.

As for Romo, well, I'll just grin a little bit about it. I will say though, that the Cowboys have squandered a lot of talent since the middle of the 00's and their problems are a lot deeper seeded than Tony Romo.

The Packers have been very fortunate to have been blessed with Starr, Dickey, Favre, and Rodgers. With the exception of Dickey, a lot of winning has occurred because of these guys. And I would say that Favre and Rodgers did more with less talent than Starr had - and Starr himself has said he is nowhere near the quarterback Favre and Rodgers are. Whatever we end up paying Rodgers, it will seem like a bargain in a couple years. There isn't a player in the league that I would trade him for.

As for Romo, well, I'll just grin a little bit about it. I will say though, that the Cowboys have squandered a lot of talent since the middle of the 00's and their problems are a lot deeper seeded than Tony Romo.

I guess we see it differently. Aside from maybe a few really young guys who haven't really had their chance yet I don't see more than 3 maybe 4 of the QBs warming the bench on any team as viable starters in the NFL. I think that is why so many teams have been reaching to draft young QBs the last couple of years. There is no one in the league now that you realistically have a chance to get (read that as backups on other teams) that are any better than any rookie you might draft. Teams are locking up their starters and letting the backups go but that is mainly because the backups suck. Players like Flynn and Kolb and Palmer are getting looks now but I could see any of the teams that get those players drafting a QB #1 anyway.

I hate the cowboys with a passion but Romo is not a bad QB. He is certainly in the top half of QBs in the league and could be a top 10. I don't see any current benchwarmers who could step in and give the cowboys anything like they get from Romo.

My point wasn't that Romo is bad, but that Rodgers is good - more like super. As for the bench warmer thing, I've seen more than a few nobodies pressed into service as QBs for good teams over the years and do a .... let's say barely adequate job. Arguably, the net body of work for Romo is barely adequate.

The Packers have been very fortunate to have been blessed with Starr, Dickey, Favre, and Rodgers. With the exception of Dickey, a lot of winning has occurred because of these guys. And I would say that Favre and Rodgers did more with less talent than Starr had - and Starr himself has said he is nowhere near the quarterback Favre and Rodgers are. Whatever we end up paying Rodgers, it will seem like a bargain in a couple years. There isn't a player in the league that I would trade him for.

As for Romo, well, I'll just grin a little bit about it. I will say though, that the Cowboys have squandered a lot of talent since the middle of the 00's and their problems are a lot deeper seeded than Tony Romo.

I don't know about Dickey, but the Packers were not "blessed" with Starr, Favre OR Rodgers. All of these quarterbacks were CREATED by the organization. Starr sucked his first year or two. He was what, a 17 round draft pick? Favre was traded out of Atlanta for being a drunkass country boy. And Rodgers himself wasn't exactly lighting it up under the Sherman/Rosseley regime. Imo, without Mike, Aaron probably wouldn't even be as good as Alex Smith has become. Hard to say I guess, maybe they would have gotten a different QB guru to coach him up.

Point being, none of these QBs happened by accident.

And as for Favre and Rodgers, they're not half the man Starr was, and I'd take Starr over either one of them, any day of the week.

No source, but on Facebook they had some trending article of some kind that said Packers and Aaron Rodgers are about $2 million apart.

hahahaha is that $2 million total for the length of the contract? or per season? or per game? Assuming it is per season, that's an insignificant figure - considering that he will undoubtedly average well over $20 million per season, and I HOPE they make it a ten or more year contract - to lessen the cap hit and give us the peace of mind of having him for the rest of his career. I say split the difference and give him $23 million a season instead of $22 or 24 million hahaha.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.